Is climate change causing more severe wildfires? It’s an allegation that many supporters of a new state cap-and-trade carbon tax are making to help their cause. But, scientists are casting doubt on the claim just as cap-and-trade supporters ramp up their claims that Washington’s wildfires are directly caused by our warming climate.

It’s an important discussion. In 2007, the National Science Foundation published a report estimating that California fires emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in a one-week period – equivalent to 25 percent of the state’s monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout California and greater than the annual carbon emissions from all of Washington’s electricity generation.

When Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) held a recent press conference to tie the severity and frequency of California wildfires to climate change, he met stiff resistance from scientists (Gov. Brown’s link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say, LA Times, October 19, 2015). University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke called Brown’s allegations “noble-cause corruption.” He’s making unsupported claims about causation between climate change and wildfire in order to advance his policy prescriptions. “That is the nature of politics,” Pielke is quoted as saying, “but sometimes the science really has to matter.”

Much like Gov. Brown, Washington advocates for a new cap-and-trade tax plan are making unsupported claims in order to advance their cause.

More from scientists interviewed or sourced for the LA Times story:

A study published in August by a Columbia University team led by climatologist Park Williams concluded that global warming has indeed shown itself in California, by increasing evaporation that has aggravated the current drought. But Williams said his research, the first to tease out the degree to which global warming is affecting California weather, did not show climate change to be a major cause of the drought.

Even climate ecologists who describe a strong tie between fire frequency and weather say they cannot attribute that connection to phenomena beyond normal, multi-decade variations seen throughout California history.

“There is insufficient data,” said U.S. Forest Service ecologist Matt Jolly. His work shows that over the last 30 years, California has had an average of 18 additional days per year that are conducive to fire.

Here in Washington, noted scientist Cliff Mass has reached similar conclusions when it comes to the connection between wildfires and climate change.

The key question is are Washington’s forests going to store carbon or release it? According to the U.S. Forest Service, Washington stored 2.4 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2012 – the second highest total of any state. We can either manage our federal forests to maximize carbon storage and reduce the incidence of catastrophic wildfire, or we can experience future fires and the extreme pulses of CO2 they emit.

Even in a world impacted by climate change, scientists say, land management policies will have the greatest effect on the prevalence and intensity of fire. A “hands off” approach to active management of federal forests combined with a decade of fire suppression has created fuel for fires that can ignite at any time.

The tendency to make claims unsupported by data will, unfortunately, be a hallmark of any campaign to convince Washingtonians that adopting a cap-and-trade carbon tax is the only way to slow carbon emissions. But, it ignores history. We’ve all made tremendous progress in the last 25 years in reducing carbon emissions – in our businesses, families, farms, and government agencies. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington’s CO2 emissions are now below 1990 levels. Can more be done? Of course, and it should be. But, it will require more collaboration and fewer blunt instruments like the taxes on carbon being proposed.

Washington workers, farmers, families, and employers are united in the goal of reducing carbon emissions in our state. While we often differ on the best way to achieve this objective, our commitment is to engage productively with all Washingtonians on solutions.

This Ballard home, originally built in 1911, was reimagined using modern updates and green technologies.

We believe that every person, every business and every government agency can play a role in reducing our state’s carbon emissions. The Built Green program embodies this vision. This program was created by MasterBuilders in cooperation with King and Snohomish Counties and the City of Seattle.

“Built Green” homes are designed to be environmentally friendly, while also being cost-effective to own and operate. For instance, this Ballard home went through many upgrades such as improved insulation and energy recovery ventilation. Original wood frames were recycled and used as a feature wall inside the rebuilt home. Not only are these changes helpful to the environment, but they reduced energy costs over $1400 per year.

Aside from changes to the construction of the home, many Built Green residences feature landscape improvements. The home featured above includes drywells and a rain garden, which captures rain to be used throughout the drier summer months. Drought-resistant plants are used which require less water than grass. Siding is dipped in a wood treatment that uses fewer chemicals than traditional products and doesn’t need to be reapplied.

Even if you’re not in the market for a new house or wanting to make big changes to your home, you can still reduce your impact. Try using EnergyStar certified light bulbs or use a high-efficiency furnace filter.

All of us working together can make a difference. Change won’t come through drastic tax measures but from a commitment from each and every one of us. What have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?

Washingtonians love the outdoors, and why wouldn’t we? We have ocean access, mountains for skiing and hiking, abundant fishing in our streams and rivers, and 52% of our state is forested. In fact, we are home to the largest temperate rain forest zone in the world, stretching from Kodiak Island in Alaska to northern California.

Forests aren’t only for nature lovers, though. Globally they are home to 80% of terrestrial biodiversity and are nature’s way of sequestering carbon. According to the United Nations Climate Summit’s 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, “Forests represent one of the largest, most cost-effective climate solutions available today.”

The U.S. Forest Service ranks Washington state as having the 3rd most carbon storage in its forests. We want to protect that rank. Through smart public policies and science-based forest management practices, we will keep our forests robust. For example, renewable biomass energy is made from slash leftovers of timber harvesting. This biomass is then used to power sawmills and pulp and paper mills. The Washington Forest Protection Association states that this process has been around for more than a century, but now due to technological advances, forest product companies are able to modernize their efforts and increase efficiency. This is only one of the many ways technology is advancing our lumber practices.

Our forests help protect us from the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. We are protecting them by implementing sustainable forestry practices for years to come.

Here in Washington, we have a history of pioneering new technologies and, fittingly, were recognized by Bloomberg as the most innovative state in the U.S. As we know however, innovation doesn’t come by accident but through a commitment to improve.

Washington businesses and agencies have made great strides to reduce their carbon footprint. Still there is more to be done, which is why our plan supports continued investment to lower greenhouse gas emissions. We need to continue investing in university-led research that can bring about the commercialization of low- or zero-carbon goods and services, promote public policies that encourage private sector investments in carbon reducing technologies and carbon sequestration and support Clean Energy Funds, which provide resources to promising technology.

Investments in these efforts have already shown promise. The Washington State Department of Commerce awarded a grant through its Clean Energy Funds program to Craft3, “a nonprofit community development financial institution with a mission to strengthen economic, ecological and family resilience in Pacific Northwest communities.” Craft3 then provides loans to businesses and individuals who want to improve their energy efficiency. As part of this program, a loan to McKinstry went towards developing a waste heat exchange system to provide hot water and heat for a large office building. McKinstry, a Seattle-based firm with more than 1,800 employees, estimates this will save about 2/3 of the electricity they would otherwise have to buy for water and heat. This investment reduces their greenhouse gas emissions by 5,516 metric tons. The success stories don’t end there; nor should we let them.

Investing in innovation is what we do, and how we will continue to reduce our carbon footprint.

Gov. Jay Inslee made headlines this week when he declared he would make the state’s largest polluters pay for transportation improvements and other costs by taxing them for the amount of carbon they release into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, Inslee’s plan is not as perfect as the wording in his statements to the media. In reality, the costs of adding massive taxes to large businesses will ultimately impact us all.

The state estimates fuel prices will increase 7 to 15 percent higher than they otherwise would be by 2035.
Companies hit hard by the so-called cap-and-trade program and carbon limits are not likely to simply absorb the reduction in profits. The more likely scenario is that jobs will be lost and the cost of products we all need — steel, oil and electricity — will increase as business leaders seek to recoup the costs.

Inslee has made it clear that combating the perceived effects of climate change will be a primary focus of his time in office.

Inslee says his plan will produce $1 billion in revenue the first year alone. We share the concern of state Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama, who addressed the governor’s plan Wednesday and called some aspects into question. “He says his tax on polluters will raise nearly five billion dollars over the next twelve years,” Orcutt wrote. “How did he arrive at that figure? If his past statements as a candidate and governor on budget and tax-related issues are any guide, I suspect it will not stand up to scrutiny.

“Additionally, the governor’s plan contains the same vague promises about transportation reforms we’ve heard before. Aside from practical design, which does appear to be saving taxpayer dollars, there isn’t a strong commitment to fixing the many messes at WSDOT.”

A major transportation package is sorely needed from the coming legislative session. This is not the correct way of going about it.

While running for governor, Inslee said “the right time (for a transportation package) is when we gain trust of Washingtonians.” With Bertha stuck below Seattle, millions of dollars lost on the State Route 520 project and a lack of interest for many needed projects in rural areas of the state, the trust has not come to fruition.

Likewise, we don’t trust that making the state’s “largest polluters” foot the bill will not have major negative consequences for us all.